1

Political Parties

Aggregate Participation - Political Parties Three Components of Political Parties

What is a political party? The answer to that question might be much like the three blindfolded men asked to describe an elephant by touch. One says it is like a tree, another like a wall, and the third like a long rope! What you find depends on where you look! Political parties are many things to many people, but political scientist V.O. Key, Jr., a famous scholar who died in the 1960s, suggested that political parties could be divided into three distinct, but interrelated parts: party in the electorate, party organization, and party in government.

Party in the Electorate. When most folks think about political parties, such as Republican and Democratic parties, they generally think about the identification of members of the public with each party. Party in the electorate is the party in the minds, hearts, and votes of the public-the psychological attachment that you do or do not have toward a political party. People generally identify with one of the two political parties and that their votes usually reflect that identification. Party in the electorate is not nearly so strong now in the United States as it has been in the past, with more than a third of the voters not identifying with either party. In Texas, party in the electorate has historically been quite strong, especially for Democrats (who controlled everything for so long), but it is weakening here as well.

The second component is the party organization . This refers to the party officials (state chairman, state committee, precinct and district chairs, as well as hired staff) who are dedicated to the daily existence and operation of the political party. These folks, some paid and some not, are dedicated to seeing that the members of their party who are recruited to run for office are elected to office.

The party organization is the party machine-it is made up of the most loyal and dedicated members of the party who want to see their candidates in office. This represents the linkage between the voters and the government. Interestingly, while the parties in Texas were strong in the electorate, they were traditionally weak in organization.

Finally, the third perspective, party in government is related to what the elected officials of each party do once in office. If the party in government is strong, Democratic elected officials will vote together on one side and Republican elected officials will vote together on the other side. Historically in Texas, party in government has been weak.

This was particularly true when the Democrats controlled everything-because everyone was a Democrat, party did not really matter. Once in office, elected officials voted according to ideology (conservative vs. moderate), region (West Texas vs. East Texas), or population density (city vs. country) rather than by party. I want to discuss the interaction of the three parts and how they work together when the party system acts responsibly.

In theory, party in the electorate refers to the political party in the minds and attitudes of the voters. If individuals strongly identify with the positions and candidates of one of the two parties, then their vote for office will be based on those convictions. Party organizations, both

2

permanent and temporary, will manage elections by appealing to those voters based on the positions they support. Finally, if the campaigns are run on issues and the voters vote based on issues, party officials in office will be careful to keep those campaign promises and be expected to be rewarded for doing so.

However, in Texas and the United States, these three components do not work together effectively. More voters are independents than Democrats or Republicans. Campaigns are run on personalities, not issues, and officials vote based on their current whims and needs rather than campaign promises. If you could get one of the three components (perhaps the party in government) to work responsibly, would it alter the other two? Would it change politics? Would it change policy?

At present, I would suggest that Texas is very strong in party organization, pretty strong in party government and weak in the electorate. Historically, Democrats were strong in the electorate and weak in organization and government. Republicans were weak in all three. In the 1970s, Republicans began to gain strength in organization, which eventually led to strength in the electorate and government. Now, while both parties are relatively weak in the electorate, Republicans are in better shape than Democrats. Look at the 2006 election for governor-the winner was a Republican (Rick Perry), but his closest challenger was a Republican running as an independent (Rylander), not a Democrat (Bell).

Interestingly, the 2012 election showed some weakness in the Republican Party organization in Texas with Ted Cruz, a Tea party candidate, defeating Lt. Governor David Dewhurst who was supported by the state party organization, to get the party nomination for the US Senate.

Characteristics of Political Parties

Political parties in the United States and Texas are significantly different from political parties in the rest of the world. Let’s look at the characteristics of those parties to examine those differences. We will talk about four characteristics of political parties in Texas and the United States:

First, they are pragmatic (practical) - as noted above, political parties in Texas and the US are more concerned about winning than they are about maintaining some type of ideological or philosophical purity. They would rather win with a candidate that believes half of the party's issues than lose with a candidate that believes all of them.

Second, they are decentralized - contrary to popular belief, America is not a two-party system. Instead, we are a 102-party system! There are the national Republican and Democratic parties, then Republican and Democratic parties in each of the fifty states. Each state party organization is organized separately and passes its one-party agenda and platform. A Republican in Texas is likely to be very different from a Republican in Massachusetts. Likewise, an Alabama Democrat may have more in common with a California Republican than a California Democrat. The national party cannot make a state or local political party do anything. A state party may nominate a candidate to run for office that party members in the rest of the country hate.

Third, political parties in this country are generally very weak. The parties cannot control who gets the party’s nomination. They cannot control who wins the election an they cannot control

3

what a candidate does when he or she gets elected to party office. If a member of the US Senate votes the opposite of the rest of his party, the party cannot kick him or her out. It can try to influence that person, but nothing more.

Finally, we do have a two-party   system . In Texas and the rest of the nation, there are just two political parties ( Democrats and Republicans ) which have a realistic chance of winning a given office. Of course, there are other parties and, once in a very great while, a third party will win a governorship, a Senate seat or a seat in the United States Congress. However, that is very rare. We are a two-party system, which is unique among most democracies in the world.

While the average person in this country, as well as many journalists and politicians, believes that political parties are not necessary, many political scientists suggest that our system would work much better with strong and "responsible" political parties. However, the key idea behind responsible parties is that candidates make promises, elected officials try to keep those promises, and voters hold officials responsible for trying to keep those promises during the next election. Clearly, this is not the case in Texas or the U.S. However, what if it were?

Why do some people think we would be better off with stronger political parties ? First, it would get us away from the politics and campaigns of personality. With truly responsible parties, campaigns and campaign commercials would be about issue positions rather than personalities. Second, if candidates actually kept their promises, voters might regain faith in the political process. Third, government officials would work together to help solve the problems of the country. If they do not solve the problems, the voters would kick out one party and replace it with the other one.

Is this likely to happen? Probably not, because we tend to dislike the political parties and the rules are not set up for political parties to have the kind of control it would take to make this happen. Do you agree or disagree with the responsible political party's perspective? Are political parties good or bad?

Functions of Political Parties

1. Candidate Recruitment: Political parties are primarily responsible for helping either recruit candidates for office or weeding out candidates so that when it comes time to hold the general election in the fall there are not 100 candidates, but one from each party. If there is no candidate from one of the major parties, it is up to the party leaders to find a candidate. This is done by the party organization.

2. Aggregate Interests: The two parties pull together the various opinions and attitudes of their voters. They take a variety of views on a variety of issues and merge them together into a general party ideology, instead of there being numerous coalitions of different groups trying to govern. Republicans generally hold a conservative philosophy and Democrats generally hold a more moderate philosophy-you can put yourself in one or the other of those camps. You may not agree with everything, but you can accept their philosophy. This is done by party in the electorate and party in government.

4

3. Mobilizing the Voters: One of the main reasons that people vote is that they trust and identify with one of the parties instead of the others. Parties, particularly the party organization, work very hard to mobilize voters and get them to go to the polls. They do this by running advertisements, sending letters, making phone calls, and even offering to take voters to the polls. Most people vote not because they know the candidates, but because they know they support one party and want it to win, or oppose the other party and don’t want it to win.

4. Contest the elections: Not only do political parties make sure there is a party candidate by managing the nomination process, they also make sure their candidate is able to run competitively in the general election. They provide for candidates by offering money, support, people, direction, and anything else that will help them be effective candidates. This includes the distribution of soft money from the parties to the candidates. There is no limit on how much soft money the parties can provide for the candidates, so interest groups and individuals will give money to the parties who will then provide unlimited money and support to the candidates.

5. Organize Government: Once party candidates are elected to office, they are expected to organize government along party lines. The party that gets me most votes gets to organize the office. A Democratic governor gets to appoint Democrats to boards and commissions. If the Republicans gain a majority in the House and Senate, they get to elect the leader and run the committees . Voting on issues in government also tend to be organized around parties- Republicans tend to side with Republicans and Democrats tend to side with other Democrats.

6. Parties Coordinate Policy: Because we have three distinct branches of government, there needs to be some mechanism by which those branches can coordinate and, at least in theory, work together. Political parties can provide this mechanism. For example, Republicans in the state legislature may not always work with a Republican governor, but they will be predisposed to do that. The same is true for Republican judges and bureaucrats. On the other hand, Democrats in each branch will also tend to coordinate their activities so that there is some continuity across the three branches of government. When different parties control the branches of government, it makes for a more difficult time. This often leads to gridlock- where there is more conflict than cooperation.

7. Parties Provide Accountability: Imagine how difficult it would be to decide who to blame if things go bad if there were no political parties. Do you blame the governor? The lieutenant governor? The Senate? The House? If they are all of the same party, you just blame that party and vote them out, expecting the other party to do better. This is a combination of party in government and party in the electorate.

This list of functions is the ideal, however, we don’t always do them well. Historically, we have done almost none of them well. Now, we are doing pretty well on all of them except organizing government and coordinating policy, but these are improving as well.

Party Historical Distribution

The history of party politics in Texas can be divided into three periods- one party Democratic (1870s–1950s), modified one-party Democrat (1960s – 1970s) and two party balance (1970s–

5

1990s). Beyond the 1990s, one might consider the state leaning Republican, but that is not clear yet.

During the first era, for more than eighty years following the Civil War (1870s to 1950s), politics in Texas could be described in one word: Democrat. Every elected official and almost all white voters claimed an affiliation with the Democratic Party. The reasons for this were many, but initially were rooted in the Civil War and Reconstruction. Texans and other Southerners associated all of the bad aspects of the Civil War and its aftermath with the national Republican administration of Abraham Lincoln and the Texas administration of Governor E.J. Davis.

For decades to come, Democratic leaders would fuel those fires to help keep the Republican Party small and ineffective. By the 1930s, the democratic hold was beginning to loosen-however; the Depression and the efforts of Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt increased the loyalty of many to the Democratic Party.

Did this one-party status among the electorate hurt the state? Hurt the voters? Most would argue that a state with one party does not serve the needs of the voters very well. Think about it in the same manner that you would a town with only one grocery store. If there is only one store, that store can provide very poor service, very high prices, and very low quality goods, because the "consumers" have nowhere else to go. Likewise, in a state with only one political party, that party can provide limited services or corrupt government, because the voters have no alternative. Further, in a one-party state, voters lose interest in politics and quit voting, because with only one party, their votes make no difference anyway!

The one party status of the Texas electorate in the early part of the century resulted in very poor government services, very high government corruption, and very low political participation. Now that we have two active and viable parties, do you see changes in these things?

The election of 1952 began to signal that democratic dominance might be weakening in Texas with the creation of Shivercrats – supporters of Democratic governor Alan Shivers who supported Republican Presidential candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower for President. These folks maintained their loyalty to the Democratic party for state and local office, but voted Republican in the national election for President.In 1961, John Tower was elected as a Republican to replace Lyndon Johnson in the United States Senate-the first statewide elected Republican since 1874. This election set in motion the second era, modified one-party Democrat. Democrats won most of the time, but Republicans could win under the right conditions or with the right candidate.

Finally, the election of Republican Bill Clements as governor in 1978 signaled the end of the second era and the beginning of a period where either party could (and did) win office on a regular basis. This era is one of two-party balance or competitive two party system and lasted from 1978 until the late 1990s. During this period, Republicans held the governorship for twelve years and Democrats for eight. Democrats controlled the Texas House and Senate, but their majorities were increasingly smaller.

Where are we now? I would argue that since the mid 1990s and the election of George W. Bush to the Office of Governor in 1994, we have been a state of modified Republican support. While

6

Democrats can win, it is less likely and must be under special circumstances (as it was for Republicans from the 1960s to 1978).

Since the early 2000's, the balance has shifted even further to the Republican party and the state might be rightly classified as strong Republican. Republicans now hold all statewide offices, except a few judicial positions, as well as majorities in the Texas Legislature and the Texas Congressional delegation. In 2010, no Democrat for statewide executive offices got more than 45% of the vote. 2014 results were even worse for Democrats who thought that ticket with a female candidate for Governor (Wendy Davis) and a Hispanic female for Lt. Governor (Leticia van de Putte) might improve their chances. Instead, no Democratic candidate for statewide office got more than 40 percent of the vote.However, Demographic trends and the growing Latino population suggest Democratic prospects may be looking up in the future with the Republican Party becoming increasingly white and the state increasingly diverse.  Let's wait and see what happend!!Permanent Party Organization

Both political parties in Texas are now organized across the entire state. There is a Democratic chair in each of the 254 counties. There is a Republican chairperson in each of the 254 counties. Further they have an executive committee and full-time staffs designed to help keep the party strong, recruit and train candidates, and get the party's message out to the voters. To see all that the modern political parties in Texas offer and do, take a look at the Web page of the Republican Party of Texas and the Democratic Party of Texas.Their purpose is to maintain the political party between elections so that during those elections, it will be viable. The permanent organization has staff people in charge of providing information to the party faithful throughout the state. They also have people in charge of raising money to keep the party going. Further, some people are in positions expressly in order to recruit potential candidates. Finally, others are mostly interested in recruiting potential supporters for votes or campaign contributions. The permanent party organization is always working to prepare the party for the next election. They work to see that there are candidates to run, money to campaign

PARTY ORGANIZATION PYRAMID;

state party chairperson (vice chair) NOT PAID

state executive committee NOT PAID

county party chair

precinct chair

7

For the most part, these are volunteer positions – almost none of those who hold party positions (state chair, executive committee, etc.) are paid for their time and effort. Let's look at those positions now. You can view the party organization here as a pyramid. At the top of that pyramid is the state party chairperson (and vice-chair) – the man or woman elected by his or her respective party to be the main voice and face of the political party.He or she is responsible for speaking on behalf of the party, raising money for the party, recruiting candidates for the party, and generally getting the voters fired up about the party’s chances of winning elections. Just below the state chairperson and vice-chair, is the   state executive committee . There is not a lot of power in this position and it is usually given to people who have been active in the political party. There are sixty-four men and women on the executive committee of each of the political parties. They do help select the chair and develop the state party platform and issue positions.Below the committee is the county party chair. This job can be very important and it is only as important as you make it. Democrats have had chairs in all 254 counties, but Republicans did not meet that level of organization until 1994. The county chair can do all of the things that the state chair in his or her county does for the state–the amount of effort the county chair puts into this job is really up to him or her. Again, it is voluntary. The county chair presides over meetings of the party and other things, but that is up to each chair. His or her job is to keep the party alive between elections.Finally, at the very bottom of the pyramid is the precinct chair. Each county is divided into electoral precincts, and county chairs try to recruit chairs in each precinct. Again, this position is what the chair makes of it. There are many precincts with no chairs and some in which chairs do absolutely nothing.

Temporary Party Organization

Every other year, the party organization gets much larger and much more active for a few months as the general election approaches. The temporary party organizations, namely precinct, district, state, and national party conventions, exist to get the party voters organized and fired up for the coming election.

The precinct convention is held on the evening of the party primary . If you voted in the party primary and got your registration stamped to show you voted, you can attend your party precinct convention that night. At the precinct convention, you elect folks to go to the county/ district convention and you propose ideas for the party platform (party agenda). One week after the precinct convention, the county/district convention is held. At this convention, you elect people to go to the state convention, then you decide which of the issue proposals from the precinct conventions are good enough to go to the state convention.

Finally, the state convention meets to write party platform and, in presidential years, determine who will go the national party convention. The state party writes the state party platform, a list of proposals and ideas that the party generally supports. However, many candidates will ignore the party platform if they do not agree with key parts of it. The platforms generally play little role in the elections.

Party conventions were once much more than large, partisan, media orchestrated pep rallies. Before candidates were chosen in primaries, they were chosen at conventions. The party leaders would get together and discuss who the party's nominee for a particular office would be. Then, they would vote and choose that nominee, considering the likelihood that they would win the

8

election, as well as the loyalty of the person to the party leaders and the party views. The convention also wrote the party platform and established the principles on which the campaigns would be conducted.

The modern conventions are little more than media-orchestrated cheerleading sessions. The party nominees are known long before the convention. The party principles and platforms are written by the convention then generally ignored by the candidates. The speakers make their speeches to the television audience rather than the convention delegates. These conventions are designed to get campaign volunteers fired up for the election.

Party organizations, both temporary and permanent, are now stronger then they have ever been. While the chairs and committee members are not paid, each party has more than two dozen paid staff persons and that number swells during the election season.

Party in Government

The final component of political parties is the party in government. Once the voters have cast their ballots and the candidates have been elected to office, those winners become part of the party in government. How do they behave once in office? To refresh your memory, in responsible parties, candidates once elected would support the party positions and support other members of their party on key issues. But historically, they did not. Legislators were more likely to vote because of where they were from (region of the state) or what beliefs they held (ideology) than because of party. There are several reasons for this:

First, the separation of powers: The executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch (both chambers) have their own power base. The leaders of each are elected by the voters and are NOT answerable to leaders of the other branches . Texas Senators would be more likely to work with leaders of the Senate than with the governor, even if they are of the same party, for example. A second reason for this was that Democrats controlled all of the offices so that party competition meant nothing.

Therefore, there was no incentive for members of the party to work together. Even if Democrats did not work together, they still won. Even if Republicans did work together, they still lost. Finally, the role and influence of lobbyists, interest groups, and political consultants in campaigns contributes to limited party government. It is difficult for the party to instill loyalty in its members by threatening to keep them out of office because interest groups and their money control that more than the parties.

See the next page to see how Texas compares!

In class, we discussed the three components or aspects of the political party: party in the electorate, party organization and party in government. Find below a ranking of the organizational strength of state Democratic and Republican party organizations. A well organized party has the structure and power to influence the elections in their state and get their candidates elected to office. Further, once elected, these candidates will be more likely to support party ideas because the party organization helped get them elected. Not surprisingly, the Texas Democrats, who for decades won elections without having to work, are not very well organized. Seventeen state Democratic parties are more organized than the Texas Democrats. Further, they

9

are much less well organized than their Republican counterparts (score of .651 for Republicans, .458 for Democrats). As noted in the lectures, Republicans were organizing and working hard even before they were winning elections. As the Republicans win more elections, what do you think will happen to the Democratic organizations? The Republican organizations?

Party in Government: Partisan Distribution of the State Legislatures, 2013

One of the key elements of political parties is their distribution within governing bodies. It is reasonable to expect different types of policies from a state that has a Democratic majority in both chambers of the legislature than from a Republican controlled state. In 2003, the Texas legislature is unified: the Republicans control the Texas Senate and the Texas House. As you can see below, states that have divided legislative chambers are not uncommon. It increases the likelihood that problems will not be solved and policy solutions will be caught up in politics. The Republican majority that was elected in 1996 was the first Republican majority in the Texas legislature since 1871!!! However, Republicans have now held both chambers of the Texas Legislature since 2012 and seem in solid control at least until 2020. How does the party balance in the legislature effect what the governor can or cannot do?

Party in Government: Partisanship of State Governors, 2105

Probably the most visible, if not influential, person in state politics is the governor. He or she influences the legislature, manages the bureaucracy and appoints hundreds, even thousands of people to positions of influence. For a political party, the governorship is the big prize in a state. Going into the 2010 elections, Democrats controlled a majority of the governorships across the country.  However, after the 2010 elections, Republicans controlled 30 of the 50 governorships and then added one more in 2012 to hold 31 of the 50 positions.  The 2010 gains were particularly important as those governors got to play a big role in drawing the election districts for the state legislature and the members of Congress from their state and they helped give the Republicans an advantage. Think about how government and politics in Texas might be different now if Ann Richards had beaten George Bush in 1994 or if Tony Sanchez had defeated Rick Perry in 2002 and we had a Democratic governor? Perry is now the longest serving governor in the country. Do you think things might be different had a Democrat won? If the answer is yes, then party in government is important!!! Alabama Republican   Alaska Independent Arizona Republican Arkansas Republican California Democrat Colorado Democrat Connecticut Democrat Delaware Democrat Florida Republican Georgia Republican Hawaii Democrat Idaho Republican Illinois Republican Indiana Republican Iowa Republican Kansas Republican Kentucky Democrat Louisiana Republican Maine Independen Maryland Democrat Massachusetts Democrat Michigan Republican Minnesota Democrat Mississippi Republican Missouri Democrat

10

Political Parties in 2015 TexasGoing into the 2014 election, Democrats were hopeful that they would be able to turn around more than a decade of Republican dominance with the nomination of popular state senator Wendy Davis as their nominee or Governor and the nomination of Hispanic state senator Leticia Van de Putte for Lt. Governor. However, it turns out that 2014 was not a good year for Democrats in Texas or across the nation. Davis and Van de Putte lost by almost twenty percent, putting a Republican in the GOvenror's office (former Attorney General Greg Abbott) again (the last Democrat won in 1990) and the Lt. Governor's position (Dan Patrick).  Further, Republicans picked up seats in both chambers of the state legislature to increase their majorities to well over sixty percent in each and won every other statewide office. Clearly, the Republican Party is stronger in the electorate right now than the the Democratic party and the state is becoming very close to being classified as a one-party Republican state. For now, it is still classified as Leaning Republican, but if Republicans sweep again in 2018, I think one can safely categorize it as One-Party Republican.When it comes to party organization, both parties are quite strong and can compete for elections, although the Republican results are better. Interestingly, as the Republican party has gotten stronger in the electorate, they have gotten weaker in government, dividing into two factions - Boardroom (traditional) Republicans and Bedroom (Tea Party) Republicans. Although they control all statewide offices and large majorities in each chamber of the legislature, they often need the support of a few Democrats to pass their bills. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to stick together in opposition to the Republican majority. In 2015, the strength of the two parties in Texas along the three dimensions are:

Party Dimension         Republican Party     Democratic Party

Party in the Electorate Strong   Weak

Party Organization Strong  Strong

Party in Government Somewhat Weak Somewhat Strong

The Legislative Branch

Branches of GovernmentThe government of Texas (and the United States) was founded on several principles. One of the most significant, and most unique in the 1700s when the United States Constitution was written, was the idea of separation of powers: different powers of government should be housed in separate and distinct branches (to read James Madison's defense of this arrangement, read Federalist Paper #47.To understand why the authors of the United States Constitution chose such an arrangement, consider the context in which they were writing. They had been under a unitary government in Great Britain in which all governmental power was with the King. That power had been abused.

11

They had tried the Articles of Confederation, where the national government had no real power. The alternative was to give the national government power, but control that power by distributing it among the branches. Our government is divided into three distinct and separate branches of government. This refers to the separation of powers-each branch of government is responsible for a certain function of governing:

Legislative Branch: The legislative branch was designed to make the laws. They write, debate and pass legislation that will govern the state of Texas.

The Executive Branch: The executive branch, including the governor and other executive offices (Attorney General, Comptroller, Secretary of State, etc.) was designated as the branch toexecute the laws as passed by the legislature.

The Judicial Branch: The judicial branch was dedicated as the branch of government assigned to interpret the laws and apply them to specific situations.

While it was not one of the original three branches of government, we will also talk about the bureaucracy, the lower level officials who are dedicated to delivering the laws and implementing them, as passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and interpreted by the courts. You can consider the bureaucracy to be the face, hands or feet of the government-its delivery mechanism.

Legislative Branch When the authors of the Texas Constitution sat down in 1874 to establish the new government, they had to make many difficult decisions. However, one decision that was not difficult was to invest most of the power of the new government in the hands of the legislative branch of government rather than the executive branch. History had taught them that an unchecked executive was detrimental to the freedoms that Texans had come to demand from government. Two recent experiences with a strong executive were fresh on their minds. First, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, had basically suspended the law and made himself a virtual dictator. Following the war, Texas was governed by Edmund J. Davis, who ruled over the most corrupt administration in the history of Texas and tried to stay in office after defeat by force! Is it any wonder that they decided to give most of the power to the legislative branch?

Another reason to invest power in this branch was more pragmatic from their perspective. While most of them would never be governor, most would likely be elected to the new legislature. So, by giving power to the legislature, they were giving power to themselves. While the legislature is more white, more male, more educated, and wealthier than the rest of the state, it is still most representative of the people of Texas. It has a more diverse membership than either the executive branch or the judicial branch. Therefore, many argue that it can better represent the people of Texas. Do you agree or disagree with that logic?

The legislative branch in Texas is called the Texas Legislature. In Washington, the national legislative branch is called the United States Congress . In some states it is called the General Assembly. Let me clarify a few terms:

Legislature: a group of elected officials who write, debate and pass the laws that govern a state.

12

Legislator: an individual member of the legislature. A legislator is a person, not a group or body.Legislation: an idea that is introduced in the legislature and called a bill - if a majority of the members of the legislature like it and the governor signs it, it can become a Law.In the rest of this section, we will talk about the characteristics and functions of the legislative branch. I want you to know these things because they are important.

The Texas Legislature: Bicameral

Like all state legislatures in the United States, with the exception of Nebraska, the Texas legislature is bicameral, meaning that there   is a house and a senate . No piece of legislation can become law without the support of each chamber. In order to become law, a bill must go through the committee and floor action in the house, and committee and floor action in the senate.

The presence of two chambers would not really matter except for the fact that they are each very different. These differences mean they function differently and politics varies in each. They differ in the following dimensions:

Difference House SenateMembership 150 31

Length of  Term Two Years Four Years

Size of District 167,000 811,000

Rules Strict Loose

Leaders Speaker of the House Lt. Governor

Committees Thirty-Six Standing Committees

Eighteen Standing Committees

Let's take a look at how each of these differences affects behavior (think of how the environment is different in large and small classrooms to get an idea of what we are talking about).

Membership. A large chamber (Texas House -150 members) must be more organized and have much stronger rules and limitations on debate. Members of the Texas Housecannot talk indefinitely on a bill and are limited in how many bills they can introduce. On the other hand, smaller bodies are less formal, with fewer rules, less dominant leadership, and fewer limits on debate. Indeed, in the Texas Senate, members can engage in unlimited debate, known as a filibuster, Also, in the smaller body, members serve on more committees and have more individual influence than do members in a larger body.

13

Length of Term. While members of the Texas House must run for re-election every two years, members of The Texas Senate serve four-year terms. Half of the Senate is up for re-election every two years. For those legislators facing the voters every two years, they must always be running and must be very aware of what the voters in their district (their constituents) want. On the other hand, senators who serve for four years can be a little less concerned in the first two years of their term and then “kick it in” during the last two years before the election.

Size of District. A Texas Senate District is almost five times the size of Texas House district. This means that senators have to represent more people and likely represent a district that is more diverse (different) in terms of race, ideology, income, and issues. This gives the senators a little more freedom to make decisions based on what they believe is best than their colleagues have in the House. Smaller districts (Texas House) tend to be more homogeneous (alike) in terms of party, ideology, income, and issues. Also, the district size means that it is much more expensive to run for a position in the Texas Senate than the Texas House - it can cost more than a million dollars to run for the Texas Senate!

Rules. Because of the size difference, the House of Representatives has a much stricter and formal set of rules than the Senate. The House has a   calendar   committee , appointed by the house speaker, that determines if a bill gets voted on for how long, and if members can debate it on the floor. House members are also limited in how many bills they can introduce . Such restrictions are not present in the Texas Senate.

Leader. While both chambers have a leader at the top of their chamber, they are quite different. Leadership in the House is headed by the speaker of the house who is elected by the members of the House from the 150 members. He or she (no women have served in this post as of 2007) is usually a member of the majority party (party with the most members) and has significant control over the chamber (assigns bills, appoints committees and committee chairs, etc.). Because of the size difference, the House has a much larger leadership team, including floor leaders, whips, and other leaders.On the other hand, the president of the Senate is the lt. governor, who is elected by the voters statewide and may or may not be a member of the majority party of the Senate. His (again, there have yet to be any women holding this post) powers are similar to those of the Speaker, but he is not selected by the membership, so they may remove his powers if it becomes necessary.Committees. Because of its size, the Texas House has almost three times as many standing committees as the Senate and its members serve on fewer committees than do the senators. What that means is that House members may have more power in their little committee, but less influence over the body as a whole, than does a member of the Senate. Because most of the work is done in committees, a senator on five committees has more influence than a House member on two.

The Texas House. Because of these differences, members of the Texas House tend to be more concerned about what their voters want and are much less likely to think about the long-term effects of a bill. It is also likely to be easier to accurately represent a House district because such districts are smaller-they are more likely to be either conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican, rich or poor, etc. Legislators are more likely to have the characteristics of their districts. That is why there is a higher proportion of women, Hispanics and African-

14

Americans in the House. House members may have more influence on a smaller range of issues (in their committees), but less on a wider range of issues-the leaders have greater control over those.

The Texas Senate. On the other hand, the Senate is much less formal and members are more likely to think about what is best for the state (rather than their districts) in the long run. Because of their large districts and longer terms, they tend to have more freedom in terms of ideology and party. They also have more freedom because of the lax leadership and organization in the Senate. Because Senators serve on more committees and have greater freedom to debate on the floor, they have more influence on the final outcome of a wide range of bills than do their counterparts in the House. The Senate is much more of an informal “club” than the House.

The Texas Legislature: Other Characteristics

While the focus of this lecture is the things that make the Texas Legislature unique and set it a part from legislative bodies in other states, there are many things that it has in common with those other chambers. Before focusing on the differences as expressed in the lecture, let's look at what the Texas Legislature has in common with other state legislatures.

First, as noted above, it is bicameral, just like all state legislatures except Nebraska's.

Second, the Texas Legislature has biennial sessions - they meet once every two years. Only five states, including Texas, have bienniel sessions. The sessions are limited to 140 days every odd-numbered year. That means they have to write budgets looking two-and-a-half years down the road. That is difficult to do, because the economy may change a great deal in two years. This means that they often have to come back in special sessions between the regular sessions to adapt the budget.

Third, the members of the Texas Legislature sit by political party with Republicans gathered on one side of the floor, Democrats on the other. This makes it difficult to make friendships and build coalitions across party lines. That is one reason party is so important. In the past, members sat by seniority (who had been there the longest), but that has changed as the two parties became more balanced.

The Texas Legislature: Other Characteristics, continued

Fourth, the Texas Legislature is considered to be semi-professional. This means that it is not a full-time job like being in Congress, but the salary is large enough and the demands high enough that legislators cannot work another full-time job. Legislators do, however, need another source of income to supplement the approximately $20,000 they receive annually ($7,200 salary, plus additional money for housing and travel). The staff support is pretty good (above average during session) and turnover is about fifteen percent a year. A fully professional legislature has a higher salary, more staff and less turnover. A legislature that is not professional is often more prone to the influence of lobbyists and bribes.

Fifth, both chambers have very centralized leadership. The speaker of the House and the lt. governor have a great deal of control over their chambers, including assigning members to

15

committee , assigning bills to committee, deciding who will speak on the floor, and determining who will chair or lead each committee.

Finally, while party has historically mattered little in the Texas Legislature (everyone was a Democrat), party is now becoming increasingly important. Historically, party was less important than region, urban/rural splits, and ideology. However, as the two parties have become more balanced and distinct (Democrats more urban and liberal, Republicans more conservative and rural), party has become more important. Interestingly, as the Republican majority has grown larger, party may once again be becoming less important as Bedroom Republicans fight as much with Boardroom Republicans as Republicans do with Democrats. Right now, Democrats are pretty much irrelevant.

The Texas Legislature: Functions

Although each state legislature across the country is unique, they each are expected to perform similar functions that contribute to the successful governing of that state. As you will hear in the lecture, they are to make laws, write and pass a budget, represent the people, educate the public, and oversee the bureaucracy. Listen to the lectures and read your text to learn more about these functions. However, before doing that, think about why the legislature is the best branch of the three to undertake these activities.

First, it is the largest branch of elected officials. At the state level there are only a handful of elected officials in the executive branch (governor, lt. governor, comptroller, land use commissioner, attorney general, and commissioner of agriculture). While there are a lot of judges elected throughout the state, there are only a few judges elected at the state level. On the other hand, there are 181 legislators, so they are more likely to be representative of the diversity of the state.

Second, the members of the legislature are elected from districts all across the state. They are the only branch that must represent the geographic diversity of the state.

Third, the members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms, giving them more of a reason to adequately represent the interests of the citizens than any other branch (the governor is elected to four-year terms and most state judges to six-year terms).

Lawmaking Function: the most common and most important function of any legislative body in a representative democracy is that of lawmaking. It is the legislature that makes the laws that govern what you do in Texas. The ideas are developed, debated, discussed, changed, and passed in the Texas Legislature. These bills become the laws that govern the state.

Manage Revenues and Budgets: every two years, the members of the Texas Legislature determine who much money the state will raise through taxes, fees, and other means, and then how that money will be spent. They develop, debate, discuss, and pass a biennial budget.

Representative Body: Third, the Texas Legislature is designed to represent the interests and desires of the people of Texas. That is why they are elected.

16

Bureaucratic Oversight: A major, and often least performed, function of the legislature is oversight- making sure that the bureaucracy is doing what it promises and doing what it says in an effective and efficient manner.

Public Education: One of the functions that is becoming increasingly important is that of making sure the public knows and understands what its government is doing. With technology and the Internet, the public is demanding, and gaining, increased access to the legislative process.

Institutional Leadership

The first function we will examine is that of lawmaking-we will look at the ways the legislature organizes itself to perform that very important function. There are four organizational units that are important to this function:

1. Leadership2. Committees3. Parties4. Caucuses

Leadership is the one centralizing force in the legislature.

Like any governing institution, the Texas Legislature must have leaders. These are the people with the power to make sure the bills get passed, the budget gets written, and the legislature does its job. The leader of the House of Representatives is the Speaker of the House. Joe Straus has held that post since 2009. He is elected by the members of the House. The leader of the Senate is the President of the Senate, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst (2005-Present). He is elected statewide and does not have to have the support of the members of the Senate to lead it. Each of these folks is the most important person in each of their chambers.

Institutional Leadership

While both leaders are important, there are some differences between the speaker and the senate president. The speaker is elected by the members of his chamber, while the lt. governor is elected by the people of the State of Texas. Second, the speaker is elected to the House of Representatives by the people of his or her district and then is elected to be speaker by the members. He or she must represent his district while being concerned about the state of Texas at the same time. The speaker must balance between the two while the lt. governor is elected statewide and does not have to represent a district. Finally, the lt. governor is elected to a four-year term, like the governor and other statewide officers (and the members of the Senate), but the speaker is elected to a two-year term by his or her district and to a two year term by the members.

One thing you must keep in mind is that the formal powers of both the speaker and the lt. governor are granted by the rules that organize that body and are voted on at the beginning of each session by the members of that body. What the members giveth, the members can (but seldom do) taketh away.

17

Understand that both the lt. governor and the speaker of the house are more powerful than the governor of Texas. I would suggest as well that the comptroller of the State is also more powerful than the governor.

Formal Powers

The offices of the speaker and the lt. governor each have powers associated with them that will be possessed by anyone in these positions. Without these powers, the speaker and lt. governor would have only their personalities and personal skills to rely on to get anything accomplished. Compared to leaders in other states, the formal powers of the leaders of the Texas Legislature are very strong.

For all intents and purposes, they appoint the members and chairpersons of the committees (although the speaker does have to give some appointments on seniority, he or she can still stack the committees to his advantage). In twelve state chambers, that power of committee assignment and chair assignment does not belong to the leader, but instead to a committee.

In six others, appointments must be approved by the members. Leaders in Texas also determine who will chair each committee - given the power of the committees to determine the fate of a bill, controlling the fate of a committee chair controls the fate of that bill. This power is a good one, but it is difficult, and if you mess up, it can really look bad for you as the leader.

Third, the leaders of the Texas Legislature have the power to assign the bills to committee. In a few states, that power belongs to a committee of members or the clerk. Whoever, or whatever, controls the bill assignment process controls the flow of legislation. As presiding officers, all leaders have the power to recognize people to speak on the floor just as the Texas leaders do.

Formal Powers, continued

Fourth, leaders in both chambers have the power to recognize who will speak on the floor, thereby controlling the nature and flow of debate. If the speaker knows that he or she wants a bill to pass and knows that one of the members does not, the speaker may neglect to recognize that person to speak on the bill, thus controlling the bill's fate.

Fifth, both leaders control if and when bills are heard on the floor. In the House, the order of bills is determined by the Calendar’s Committee which is appointed (members and chairs). In the House, this committee, controlled by the speaker, determines the order in which bills will be heard, and if a bill is put at the end of the list, it will not be heard. In the Senate, the rules require that bills be heard in the order they are reported from committee-however, the Senate gets around this by introducing, on the first day, a bill that no one wants to be passed, called a blocking bill. This bill is first on the calendar every day, and someone will move to suspend the rules so that it is not voted on. Once the rules are suspended, the lt. governor can go in whatever order he or she wishes!

Finally, both the lt. governor and the speaker of the House have the power to appoint members of Conference Committees. If a bill passes both chambers, but with some differences,

18

each chamber appoints some members to find a compromise. The members of these important committees are determined by the speaker (House members) and the lt. governor (senators). What they do will determine the fate of the bill.

In short, the leader of the Texas Legislature is very powerful. He or she can basically doom any bill to death and virtually guarantee the success of all but the most unpopular bills. Is that a problem? Should one person have that much power? To read more about these formal powers, check out this Web site.Informal Powers

Not all powers of leadership are formal or associated with the office. In fact, I would argue that the most significant powers are those not associated with the office, but rather associated with the person holding the office. Leadership in a body of elected equals is usually more about personality and personal skills than it is about brute power. While Speaker Laney and lt. governor Perry had very similar formal powers, their informal skills are very different and, will likely render one less effective than the other. Let's look at the informal powers of the two current leaders.

Speaker Joe Straus came to the position of Speaker after several years in the House, but came to the position initially with more votes from Democrats (he is a Republican) than Republicans - he defeated sitting Speaker Tom Craddick. He is now (2012) in his third term and is getting pretty well established in the job. He was challenged by a more conservative Republican for the position in 2011 and was challenged again by another conservative (Bedroom) Republican in 2013, although the challenge was not considered serious. Heis getting more familiar with his members. He knows their abilities, their strengths, their weaknesses, and the kinds of arguments necessary to get their vote. This experience and knowledge are his key informal powers.

Lt. Governor Dewhurst came to that position from the Office of Land Use and had no experience in the Texas Senate. He did not have a thorough understanding of the rules of the Senate or the members. He has now (2012) been in the position for almost a decade and has become quite adept at wielding the power and also has a strong working knowledge of his members. Dewhurst is running for the US Senate - if he wins, how would you advise his successor in the Office of Lt. Governor?

Committees: Types

The Texas Legislature processes over five thousand bill proposals every session in less than six months. How is that possible? The primary reason is that the legislature divides itself into committees for the sake of completing its lawmaking tasks. Legislative committees are merely subgroups within the legislature dedicated to completing some particular function or task. They are made up of members of the legislature, both House and Senate.

There are four key types of committees in the Texas Legislature, based on the degree to which they are permanent and whether they include members of both chambers or just one chamber.

Standing Committees: Standing committees are by far the most important committees in the Texas Legislature. They are permanent (exist from one session to the next) and include members of only one chamber-House standing committees have House members and Senate standing

19

committees include senators. Standing committees cover a general category of bills. Education committees handle all education bills. In 2011, there were thirty-six Standing House committees and eighteen Standing Senate committees. Every bill introduced in the House or Senate must be assigned to a committee for review. A few of the Standing committees have subcommittees, which are specialized subdivisions of the standing committee.

Joint (Interim) Committees: These committees are relatively permanent, especially those that meet during the interim (the period when the legislature is not in session) and they usually contain members of both chambers. They usually address particular topics that are of political interest. Interim committees are important because they allow the legislature to continue to work and get things done even when they are not officially in session.

Ad-Hoc (Select or Special) Committees: Ad hoc, or special / select committees, are temporary, usually existing for one session and containing members of just one chamber. House select committees have House members and Senate select committees have Senators. These committees are usually created to deal with “hot” political topics.

Conference Committees: As noted earlier, conference committees are formed when each chamber passes different versions of a bill and a compromise needs to be considered. They are temporary (existing only long enough to address that bill), deal only with a specific bill, and contain members of both the House and Senate. Conference Committees are often used as a way to kill a bill that legislators don’t want passed, but the public does. The most significant committees are the standing committees (forty in the House and fifteen in the Senate. Each of the standing committees has a specific jurisdiction and deals with all legislation in that jurisdiction during the regular legislative session. Most standing committees handle about thirty to forty-five bills per session, but others like Business and Industry and Public Education may handle well over one hundred bills. This allows the legislature to deal with numerous bills at the same time.

Special committees exist to respond to a particular hot topic at a given time. There are presently two special committees in the Senate dealing with Texas border affairs and electric utilities deregulation. There are presently no special committees in the House.

Finally, the Senate currently has thirty-one interim committees! Those committees will deal with a wide variety of legislation during the eighteen months that the legislature is not in its regular session.

Committees: Actions

Standing committees are very powerful in the Texas Legislature because they have the power to dispose of legislation without it ever going to the whole chamber for a vote. If a standing committee recommends that a bill pass the floor, it probably will pass. If a standing committee does not pass a bill out of committee it definitely will die. If a standing committee recommends a bill not go to the floor, it will probably not pass. Once a bill is assigned to a standing committee, that committee has four options:

1. Inaction (do nothing): Committees in the Texas Legislature are not required to act on bills or even give them a hearing. If they do nothing, then a bill is dead and never goes to the floor. This is the fate of the vast majority of bills in the Texas Legislature. For example, during the 2007

20

session, 20, 258 bills were referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Of those, only 88 were reported out (goes to the floor).2. Report Favorably as Amended: If a majority of the members of the committee like the concept of the bill, they may make some minor changes (amendments) and then recommend that it be passed by the entire body. The amendment process allows members to take advantage of the expertise they have developed on the committee.

Committees: Actions, continued

3. Report Favorably As Is: Sometimes, but not too often, a bill is so good as it is that the committee members don’t feel it necessary to make any changes. In such cases, they will vote it out of committee and recommend the members pass it as it is.

4. Report Unfavorably: Although it is rare, a committee can send a bill to the floor with an unfavorable report-suggesting that the members of the body vote against the bill. Usually, if the committee does not like a bill, they will just do nothing with it. However, if a minority of the committee members want it voted on by the whole body, this step might be taken.

A look at the disposition of bills by one House committee, Agriculture and Livestock, gives you an idea of its power. During the 1997 legislative session, this committee received thirty-one bills to consider. Six of those bills never left the committee. Of the remaining twenty-five bills, nineteen became law, one was vetoed, another died in a second committee and four died on the floor. In other words, the committee prevailed in twenty-five of the thirty-one cases, for a success rate of better than 80%. In another committee, Business and Industry, a full third of the bills never left the committee at all!

In short, a glance at these two committees indicates just how important the committees are when it comes to controlling the flow of legislation. Can you imagine how congested the whole process would be if the legislature tried to process five thousand bills with no committee system?

Committees: Benefits

As should be clear by now, standing committees are critical to an effective legislative process. They provide significant benefits to the legislature as a whole and to legislators individually. Let's take a quick look at both sets of benefits.

First, how does the existence of committees benefit the legislature as a whole?

1. It allows for multi-tasking: The presence of numerous subgroups within the legislature means that the institution can numerous bills at the same time. While the Committee on Agriculture is considering a bill in hearings, a half-dozen other committees are also considering bills. This is a very efficient process.

2. It allows for the killing of bad bills with little effort: Not all bills introduced in the Texas Legislature are good bills or would make good laws. Indeed, I would argue that many are not good at all, and even the person introducing that bill does not want it to pass. If the entire body had to debate and discuss every bill, even the bad ones, their work would never get done. Instead, they can send them to committee, which lets them die with no effort, fuss, or muss.

21

3. It makes Good Bills Better: Because members of the committees often have significant experience in the policy area of the bills they review (i.e., many of the members of the Education Committee are former teachers or school administrators), they can use their expertise to improve bills. The process of informed debate and discussion in the committee can strengthen good bills before they go to the floor for a vote.

4. It takes advantage of membership expertise: One reason committees can improve the quality of bills is that the members of a given committee often bring useful expertise to that committee. For example, a former farmer will bring useful knowledge to the Agriculture Committee, as would a banker to the Finance Committee.Committees: Benefits, continued

Now, let’s turn to how the presence of a committee system benefits individual members of the Legislature.

It let’s members use their own expertise: The presence of the committee system lets individual members take advantage of their own policy strengths and focus on issues in which they are interested. This allows them to do their best work. While the leaders choose the committee members, members request certain committees based on their own needs and interests and leaders usually try to grant those requests.

It helps members get re-elected: Not surprisingly, most members of the Texas Legislature want to get re-elected. The committee system helps them meet this goal by allowing them to work on issues that are important to the district and to the constituents who will (or will not) re-elect them . For example, a legislator from a rural district can help his or her district by being on the Agriculture Committee. A legislator from an urban district might choose to serve on the Human Services Committee. Indeed, a look at the committee members for the House Human Services Committee finds most members are from urban districts.

It is a source of power and influence: In addition to wanting to be re-elected, most legislators like power and influence. The committee system allows them to have some power not only within their committee, but outside it. By influencing the outcome of bills in their own committee, the members can influence what goes on elsewhere.

It is a source of public exposure: It is often said that, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King!” This means that while you may not know everything about something, if you know more than anyone else, then that is enough. By being on a committee, you become a spokesperson regarding the issues that the committee deals with. If those issues become “hot,” you may be able to ride the publicity to higher office.

Political Parties/Caucuses

Legislative caucuses and legislative parties are very similar. Indeed, one might think of the legislative party as a caucus based on a common party affiliation. However, we set the two apart

22

because of the critical role that political parties play in the formal organization of the Texas Legislature. Leadership is selected and committee assignments made based on the party distribution of the legislature. If the Republicans have a majority, they usually get the key leadership positions and get control of key committees. If the Democrats have a majority, they get them instead.

Historically, neither partisan caucuses, nor ethnic or gender-based caucuses mattered much in the Texas Legislature. However, this has changed dramatically in the last few years. Now, political party affiliation, ethnicity, and gender are three of the biggest and strongest predictors of how a member of the Texas House or Senate is going to vote on a bill. Why has this shift taken place? The reason is simple: numbers. As the Republican Party has grown in size to the point where it can compete with, and even defeat, the Democratic majority, they saw utility in working together.

When there were only a few Republicans, it made no sense to vote along party lines, because the Republicans would always lose. Now, with both parties competitive, there is pressure to stay within the party line.

Historically, party loyalty was drowned out by ideology and regionalism. Conservatives, regardless of party, voted together on ideological issues, and legislators from various regions voted together for whatever was in the interest of their regions, regardless of party.

Likewise, when there were only a handful of Hispanic or African-American members, minority members could not afford to make race an issue. Now that they control almost a quarter of the seats, a united minority caucus has a lot of power. They can use those united votes to get concessions on significant issues. In a similar manner, as the number of women approaches 20%, they realize that if they are united, they can make a significant difference on women's issues.

Formal Stages of the Lawmaking Process Part 1

Not surprisingly, there is a formal process by which a bill becomes a law. While there are many steps to this process, we will narrow it down to seven steps. Your textbook talks about five steps, but I view the process of taking the bill through the second chamber as a step (they do not) and I add the inclusion of a Conference Committee (the textbook does not). Now, let's look at these steps:

Step 1 (Bill Introduction): Before a bill can become a law, it must be introduced by a member of that chamber and then referred to a committee for discussion. Only members of the House can introduce House bills and only members of the Senate can introduce Senate bills. The governor cannot introduce a bill. The Supreme Court justices cannot introduce a bill. Even God would have to get a member of the chamber to introduce a bill! Further, senators cannot introduce bills in the House and House members cannot introduce bills in the Senate. Legislators get their ideas for bills from a variety of sources, including their own experiences, their constituents, lobbyists, or the governor.

Step 2 (Bill Referral): Once the bill is introduced, the presiding officer of the given chamber (speaker of the House and president of the Senate) are empowered to assign it to committee. They can assign it to any committee they can justify. If a presiding officer wants a bill to die, he

23

or she will send it to a committee where the presiding officer knows that will happen. If he or she wants it to pass, the presiding officer will send it to a committee that he or she believes will make that happen. Both the House and the Senate have a Committee on State Affairs, which can accept most any bill given that it has to do with the affairs of the state. Take a look at the Web site to see the range of issues that this committee can consider.

Step 3 (Committee Action): Once the bill has been referred to a standing committee by the presiding officer, that committee has the power to act (or not act) on that bill. As noted earlier, the committee can do nothing, report favorably ("as is" or as amended) or not report favorably. Most bills never leave the committee of jurisdiction. This is a critical stage of the process because it is where most bills die. If the bill gets out of committee and to the floor, the members of the House or Senate may or may not accept the recommendation of the committee-they usually do what the committees says, but do not have to.

Note: In the House, a bill that has gone out of a standing committee must go to the Calendars Committee. This committee determines which calendar the bill will placed on (Emergency Calendar, Major State Calendar, General State Calendar, or Local Consent and Resolution Calendar). This committee exists only in the House and does not have a counterpart in the Senate.

Formal Stages of the Lawmaking Process Part 2

Step 4 (Floor Action): If a bill survives the Standing Committee (and the Calendar Committee in the House), then it goes to the floor to be heard by all of the members of that chamber. They will usually do what has been recommended by the standing committee. According to the rules of the House and Senate, each bill must be read three times on three different days in each chamber. The first reading occurs when the bill is introduced and assigned to committee. The second reading occurs when the bill is reported out of committee-this reading is the most important one and opens the bill up to debate and discussion. If a bill passes second reading, it is very likely to pass third reading the next day. The second reading is the most important. The reason for the three-reading rule is that no one can ram something through. This can be overruled by a two-thirds vote.

Once a bill is on the floor, the members of that body have four options to dispose of it.

1. Put It So Far Down the Calendar that It Will Not Be Heard: In both the House and the Senate, there’re are ways of placing bills so far down the legislative calendar that they are unlikely to be heard. If they are not heard, they cannot pass and become law.

2. Pass It As It Was Received From the Committee: Unlike the committee, where the most common action is to let the bill die, the most common floor action is to pass it as the committee recommended. The assumption is that the members of the committee did their work and it is now a good bill.

3. Pass It with Amendments: A second option is to pass the bill, but with some changes or amendments on the floor. Just as in committee, the members liked the bill, but wanted to add or delete a few things.

4. Table (kill) It: Finally, not all bills that come out of committee will be passed on the floor. However, it is very rare that the bill should be defeated on a straight yes or no vote-that would be

24

embarrassing for the leadership and the committee that reported it out. Instead, someone will move that the bill be “laid on the table” for further discussion at a later date- in reality, it means that the bill will not be coming back for a vote and, for all intents and purposes, is dead.Formal Stages of the Lawmaking Process, Part 2 cont'd

Step 5 (Repeat in Other Chamber): Once a bill has passed the first three steps to get through the House or Senate, it must then repeat those steps in the other chamber. Bills can go through both chambers in two different fashions:

1. Consecutively: The process we are describing here is consecutive passage, going through the two chambers in order. The bill is introduced in one chamber, passes, and then is sent to the other chamber after all steps are completed in the first. The bill as introduced in the second chamber is introduced by the chamber, not a particular member.

2. Concurrent Passage: Another process that is less common is to have the bill working its way through the two chambers at the same time (concurrently). At the same time a House member introduces the bill in the House, a Senator introduces the identical bill in the Senate. The bills then work their way through the two chambers at the same time.Step 6 (Conference Committee): If the bill gets a majority of the members to vote for it in each of the two chambers in identical form, then it goes to the governor’s desk for his or her signature. However, if it passes both chambers, but in different form (even if the differences are minor), then it must go to a conference committee. Recall that a conference committee has members of both chambers, usually five from each, appointed by the speaker of the House and president of the Senate, dedicated to resolving the differences between the two bills.

If the members of each chamber like the compromise proposed by the conference committee, they vote to concur in the report, accept the changes, and the bill goes to the governor’s desk. If they do not agree with the changes, they vote not to concur and send it back to the conference committee for another shot. A vote not to concur in either chamber will send it back to the conference committee.

Formal Stages of the Lawmaking Process, Part 2 cont'd

A vote not to concur in either chamber will send it back to the Conference Committee.

Step 7 (The Governor): Finally, if a bill survives this rigorous legislative process, it will be sent to the governor of Texas for the final step of the process. This is the only step that is not in the legislature. The governor has three options to respond:

1. Sign it Into Law: By far the most common response is to sign the bill into law. The governor signs the bill and it becomes a law.

2. Allow it to become Law Without His or Her Signature: The governor may allow the bill to become law without his or her signature-this is often done in cases where the governor opposes a bill but knows the public supports it. Governor Ann Richards allowed the Lottery Bill to become law in Texas, but did not sign it.

3. Veto the Legislation: If the governor strongly opposes a bill, he or she will veto it, keeping it from becoming law. If that is the case, the legislature can try to overturn the veto, but that takes a two-thirds vote in each chamber and is almost impossible. The governor of Texas, like forty-

25

three other governors, has a special kind of veto, called the line-item veto, that he or she can use to stop part of a bill from becoming law. There are some vetoes that cannot be overridden. He or she must sign or veto a bill within ten days of getting it from the legislature - if the governor does not, it becomes law (see above). However, if the legislature is not in session at the end of that ten days, the bill dies without his or her signature - that is an override-proof veto. 20 DAYS AFTER SESSIONInformal Rules of Legislative Behavior

Just as in any aspect of life, certain behaviors are appropriate, and others are not. For example, although it is not written down anywhere as a formal rule or law, belching in public is not acceptable (except among pre-teen and teenage boys!). Certain behaviors, written down or not, are appropriate in certain situations, and others are not. The legislative world is no different. There are certain things that you just do not do if you hope to be successful in a legislature. You can abide by all of the formal rules, but if you neglect to understand or abide by the informal rules, you will have little or no success. How does a new member learn these informal rules if they are not written down anywhere? In the same ways that you learn what is and is not appropriate.

First, they learn by observing. They watch their colleagues and learn from the success and failures of others, just as you learned as a child from watching your parents.

Second, they learn by asking. A smart new legislator will make friends with a senior member and ask him or her what some of the "informal rules" are. Finally, they must sometimes learn by trial and error. It is likely that a new member who speaks too much will soon learn that such behavior makes it difficult for his or her legislation to pass and will then alter his or her behavior accordingly.

Informal Rules of Legislative Behavior, continued

Please consider the following “don’ts” as the Informal Rules:

1. Don’t Lie About what a Bill Does. While you may consider politicians to be dishonest by nature, honesty is expected in debate and discussion among legislators (sort of like honesty among thieves!). If you lie about the potential consequences of a bill and legislators are hurt politically by the real consequences of that bill, then you have lost your credibility and your ability to be effective.

2. Don’t Engage in Personal Slander of Members during a Debate. Floor and committee debate should be about the merits of the bill. You may not vote for a bill because of the person who introduces it (you think that person is an idiot), but you don’t say that and you do not call that person an idiot during the debate. In fact, to prevent such face-to-face controversy, legislators address their comments to the presiding officer rather than to the other members.

3. Don’t Be an Obnoxious Loser or Winner. Understand that there is always another day and another bill in the legislature. Today’s enemy is tomorrow’s friend, so don’t piss them off. If you lose, don’t snort and stomp around, accusing people of things, and if you win, don’t rub their noses in it. You will want to be able to work with these people on other issues in the future.

26

4. Speak on Topics you Know Something About. By definition, politicians like to hear themselves talk. However, if a legislator speaks on every bill, whether or not he has knowledge of the issue, he or she will get very little respect from their colleagues. Legislators who speak on everything generally influence nothing.

5. Don’t Grandstand (Showboat). Legislators who are successful are those who do their jobs whether or not they get publicity. Those who just show up for the cameras and don’t do their jobs well will find themselves getting very little accomplished.

Decision Making Factors in the Lawmaking Process

Let's assume that you are a member of the Texas Legislature and you are trying to decide whether to vote for or against a bill. What factors are likely to play into your decision?

What Do Your Constituents think? Perhaps the most common source of guidance is a legislator's constituents. What do the voters in the district think about the bill? However, on most of the issues facing the legislator, the voters have no opinion, are divided, or could care less (for example, they could care less about how you vote on a technical amendment to a water rights bill).

What Are Your Own Ideology and Views? Often legislators already know what they will do before a bill comes for a vote because they have a set of deeply held views on certain issues. They are liberal or conservative. For example, few legislators have to ask around to determine how they will vote on school prayer, abortion rights, or gay marriage. Those decisions are determined by their ideology.

What about Trusted Colleagues? One of the best sources for voting cues (how to vote) for legislators is other legislators. This is particularly true for relatively new legislators who turn to trusted and more experienced colleagues for advice. While it may be difficult to find out what constituents want, colleagues are easy to get to and knowledgeable about the issues.

Decision Making Factors in the Lawmaking Process, cont'd

Don’t Forget the Lobbyists. While colleagues may know a lot about a variety of issues, no person is more knowledgeable on a given issue than the lobbyist who focuses exclusively on a given issue. For example, if the bill is about health care, the lobbyist from the American Medical Association will be on top of it. Legislators often turn to lobbyists they trust (and usually agree with) on critical issues. This is particularly true in Texas where legislators have to work other jobs.

Public Opinion? Don’t forget public opinion. Elected officials, especially those who want to run some day for higher statewide office, are keenly aware of public opinion and may defy their own values and the advice of colleagues to avoid going against it.

Governor or Party Leaders? If you are of the same party as the governor and this bill is important to him or her, you are likely to defer to that person. If you are not of the same party, you may look to other leaders of your party within the legislature or other statewide officeholders. Legislative leaders are very important because of the powers we discussed above.

27

Understand the degree to which each of these factors matter will vary from issue to issue. On a hot button issue like taxes, constituents will matter. On an issue that is part of the governor’s agenda, he or she will take the lead. On moral issues, ideology will rise to the top. On procedural and technical matters, party leaders will take the lead.

Key Players in the Lawmaking Process

As you are, I am sure, quite aware of by now, while all legislators are important, some are more important than others! Let's look at those key players:

1. Speaker of the House (House) and Lt. Governor (Senate)2. Committee Chairs3. Senior Members4. Members of Key Committees for your Bills5. Issue Experts

The one thing that all of these positions or people have in common is the possession of knowledge. There are two types of knowledge that are important in the legislative arena and different leaders possess these types in different quantities. First, people in formal positions of power, such as the speaker of the House and the lt. governor, as well as very senior members of the legislature, are likely to possess a great deal of procedural knowledge, that is the knowledge of how things get done and how to make the legislative process work. This knowledge can be used to gain support or success on a variety of issues, because all issues must pass the legislative process to become law.

A second type of knowledge normally possessed by members of the committee, committee chairs, and policy experts is   subject knowledge , that is, the information about education, public safety, insurance or whatever the particular piece of legislation is about. Some people develop policy expertise or subject knowledge because of their occupations outside of the legislature (for example, teachers generally know a great deal about education, lawyers understand the law). Others gain this knowledge via years of service on a particular committee or in the legislature. This kind of knowledge is usually possessed by the committee chairs, committee members, and policy experts. Knowledge of a particular issue can be translated into influence because you can trade that knowledge for support on other legislation.

Budget and Taxation

In the eyes of many, the most significant thing that the legislature does every two years is pass the budget for the state. If they do not pass this budget, then state officials don't get paid, the roads are not maintained, and schools don't open. Compared to almost any other state, the budget powers of the Texas Legislature are strong and the powers of the governor are weak. The key players in the Texas budget process are the members of the Legislative Budget Board, the members of the House Appropriations Committee, and the members of theSenate Finance Committee. These men and women are responsible for writing the budget that will pay for state activities for the following two years.The Legislative Budget Board includes the speaker of the House and the lt. governor as well as the house chairs of Appropriations and Ways and Means and Senate Finance

28

Committees. The lt. governor appoints three more members and the speaker of the House two for a total of tenmembers, all of them state legislators (5 Senators and 5 House members).

Once the LBB has prepared a budget, it is submitted to the legislature which almost always passes it. The Legislative Budget Board is responsible for preparing and monitoring the state’s budget. The governor also can, and usually does, present a separate budget, but it is often ignored in favor of the one proposed by the LBB.

Budget and Taxation, continued

One additional responsibility of the Legislative Budget Board is to conduct agency performance reviews. At least every seven years, they review the activities and performance of bureaucratic agencies. However, they do not really happen very much nor are they very rigorous. To get a good feel for the range of responsibilities of the Legislative Budget Board, check out the Web site Legislative Budget Board Responsibilities.What about the role of the governor? He can veto the entire budget, or parts of it. In cutting out parts of the budget, he uses something called the line-item veto. The governor can use this only on the budget and cannot increase spending, but only cut it.

What factors contribute to the writing of the budget? First, members of these committees must consider the basic level of services that the government must provide. Government cannot quit funding roads, education, or public safety. Second, they must consider current economic conditions. Good economic times free up more money for the legislature to use for a variety of purposes. Third, they must consider the needs and desires of the people. Childcare assistance may not be a basic function, like education or roads, but if the voters demand it, legislators generally find a way to fund it. Finally, each member must consider his or her basic philosophy of governing-should government spend all it has on programs or should it return some to the voters to use however they wish?

The budget for the 2000-01 is almost $100 Billion! If you were on the budget committee, how would you allocate that money?

Representational Roles

The Texas Legislature is considered to be a representational body. In fact, the legislative branch is often called the representative branch of government. What exactly does that mean? What does it mean to represent someone?

Generally, legislators may define representation in one of three ways:

1. Trustee Roles: First, some, most often senators, define representation in terms of their responsibility to do what they think is best, regardless of what the members of their district believe or want. These people rely on their knowledge, their experience, and their understanding of the issues to do what they believe is best and hope the voters trust their judgment. Because the longer terms and larger districts, senators are more likely to do this.

29

2. Delegate Role: Another member, more than likely a member of the House, tends to view representation as doing what the voters from your district want, even if you disagree with them. The delegate says I was sent here to do what the voters want me to do, even if I might disagree. It is my job to do what they want. Members of the Texas House are more likely to take this approach.

3. Politico Role: Finally, a third approach is to view representation in terms of a combination of the first two, sometimes playing the role of trustee and other times playing the role of delegate. On issues that are very important to me, I will take the Trustee role. On issues that are very important to the district, I will take the delegate role. The type of issue being considered will in part determine the balance between the two roles.Which do you think is right? Is a person being arrogant if he or she believes that he or she knows better than the voters from that person's district, or is that person really in a better position to make an informed, educated decision because he or she is in the legislature? Is it any more noble to abdicate your responsibility in the name of doing what the voter wants even if you know that what he or she wants is not best for him or her? Is the person who takes one role, then the other, just copping out on the hard decisions? What do you think? Which approach to representation is the best?

Members

A different view of representation is known as mirror representation. By this definition, a body is representative of a state or country if its members have the same characteristics of the population, only in smaller numbers. This is the same as saying a model ship is a representation of a full-sized ship if it looks the same, has the same number of guns, and is the same color. By this definition of representation, the Texas Legislature does not do very well. Women, Hispanics, African-Americans, and young people are all under-represented in the Texas Legislature, while old people, attorneys, businessmen, wealthy people, and educated voters are all over-represented.

The 83rd (2013-2014) Texas Legislature reflects this disparity:

Women 38 legislators (21 %)

Hispanics 32 legislators (18%)

African Americans

17 legislators (10%)

Occupations

61 Lawyers (33.3%)

This view of representation makes some assumptions about the meaning of representation and human behavior. It assumes first that representation requires having someone like you to represent your interests. Second, it assumes that people from the same group (women, Hispanics,

30

etc.) all act the same and that the only person who can adequately represent a woman is a women, etc. Do you believe this? Can a man adequately represent the needs and views of a woman? Can a middle-aged white guy adequately represent the views of a twenty year old minority female?

Finally, this approach also assumes that we want a legislative body that mirrors us. Just because Texas has a low education level, does that mean we want our legislators to be uneducated? Just because Texas has a higher proportion of poor people than most states, does this mean we want 30% of our legislators to be below the poverty line? As you listen to this lecture think about why mirror representation is not apparent in Texas and decide if that is a good or bad thing.

Percent of Legislators that are Women, 2012 Women are more likely to be elected to office in some states than in others. This is true for

election to the legislature. This difference is important, because we know that women legislators support different issues than men, represent their constituents differently than men and make

decisions differently than their male counterparts. In Colorado, four in ten legislators are women. Women make up more than thirty percent in seven states. On the other hand, they make up less

than fifteen percent of the legislature in 8 states. The percentage of women in the Texas Legislature is considerably lower than the national average, with only fifteen states having fewer

female members than the Lone Star State. Generally, women are less likely to be elected in Southern states, conservative states and states with more professional legislatures. Why do you think women do not do as well in Texas as some other states? Does this matter? How might we

change that?ColoradoVermontHawaiiArizonaMinnesotaWashingtonIllinoisMarylandConnecticutMaineNevadaCaliforniaOregonIdahoNew JerseyKansasNew MexicoDelawareWisconsinRhode IslandFloridaMassachusettsNew Hampshire

40.038.334.233.332.832.031.130.929.929.628.628.327.827.627.527.326.825.825.825.725.624.524.5

GeorgiaAlaskaNorth CarolinaOhioNebraskaArkansasIndianaIowaNew YorkTexasMichiganSouth DakotaKentuckyTennesseeVirginiaWest VirginiaPennsylvaniaMississippiUtahNorth DakotaWyomingAlabamaOklahoma

23.723.322.922.722.422.221.321.321.221.020.920.018.818.217.917.917.016.716.314.914.413.612.8

31

MontanaMissouri

24.023.9

LouisianaSouth CarolinaDistrict of Columbia

11.19.4

Source: NCSL.ORGNumber of African American and Hispanic American Legislators

2009Just as it is expected that a legislature with ,more female members will do a better job of

representing the needs of women in a state, it is likely that an all-white legislature would not be effective at representing Hispanic or African American citizens as legislators who came from their community. A look at the tables below reveals that the proportion of African American legislators in the state (9%) is lower than some (esp. Southern) states, but a pretty accurate reflection of their proportion of the state’s population (11.8 percent). On the other hand, the

proportion of Hispanic American legislators (20%) is well below the proportion of the population who are Hispanic (37.8%)-  why do you think that is?  Does it matter?

Elections

How do we ensure that our representatives do indeed represent us? Elections! Members of the state house must face the voters every two years and members of the Texas Senate run for four-year terms. At this time, legislators either choose to seek another term and face the evaluation of the voters, or they step aside and let someone else seek the position. For those seeking to return, the election is expected to be an evaluation of the way they are representing their voters. If they are doing a good job, they will be returned, if not, they will be defeated.

What is necessary for representation to take place via elections? First, the voters must have a real choice between the candidate in office and another, different candidate. A look at the 2006 election results suggests that elections in Texas could not instill representative tendencies: 80 of the 150 House seats had only 1 candidate from a major party (Libertarians ran candidates in several districts, but got no more than 20% of the vote anywhere)! In only 11 of the 150 races did the challenger win or even have a serious chance. In short, in over 80% of the cases, the voter really did not have an alternative if his or her legislator was failing to represent him or her adequately. In 8 of 15 Senate Seats (over half), the legislator in office did not have an opponent.

Why is competition so low?

1. Incumbent advantage: The incumbent is the person already holding the office. Because the incumbent has an advantage in name recognition (folks already know who he or she is) and the ability to raise money (lobbyists will take care of them), an incumbent is hard to beat, so he or she is seldom challenged.Elections, continued

2. Partisan Gerrymandering: More than three-quarters of the Texas Legislative seats are considered to be safe for one party or the other because of gerrymandering (drawing a district to advantage or disadvantage of one group). Democrats do not have a realistic shot of winning about forty percent of the seats and Republicans cannot win about a quarter of them, therefore, they seldom field a serious candidate.

32

3. Racial Gerrymandering: As was noted earlier in the course (under elections), the Supreme Court now requires that the districts include a certain proportion of seats that can be won by a candidate who is African-American or Hispanic. This has created many districts that are so heavily Democratic (minority districts) or so heavily Republican (non-minority districts) that competition is nonexistent.

4. High Cost of Running: If a candidate who is not the incumbent is to have a realistic shot at winning a seat in the Texas House, he or she must be able to raise several hundred thousand dollars. To be competitive in the Senate you may need to spend close to or above $1 million! For a job that pays $7,200 a year! This discourages many qualified candidates from running. Besides the financial cost, there is also the time commitment of running for office.Why do you think competition for these offices is so low? Does this concern you? Why or why not?

Bureaucratic Oversight

One of the least understood, least appreciated, but potentially most significant functions of the legislature, is its role in overseeing the activities of the bureaucracy, or the executive branch offices. The legislature is supposed to make sure that the bureaucratic agencies charged with putting its laws into action actually are doing that. However, this may be the least performed of the five legislative functions for a variety of reasons.

First and foremost, there is not political reward in doing oversight (unless you discover a $1,200 hammer or $20,000 toilet seat). Voters may pay attention when a legislator passes a bill or when he or she gets a grant for the district or has a bridge built in the district. However, they seldom pay attention when a legislator makes sure the bureaucrats are doing their job.

Second, effective oversight takes a great deal of work, time and effort. Members of the Texas Legislature do not possess the time or staff to engage in such comprehensive work where the rewards are likely to be so small.

When legislators do engage in oversight, it can generally take one of three forms: casework, performance review hearings, or the budget process.

1) Casework: This occurs when you respond to a concern or question by a constituent. A constituent calls and is having a problem with the bureaucracy. You solve these problems, but only one at a time. It has a very limited effect.

2) Performance Review Hearings: As noted above under the budget process, members of the Texas Legislature (namely the Legislative Budget Board) are supposed to hold performance review hearings for bureaucratic agencies at least every seven years. At these hearings, they can perform comprehensive oversight.

However, this does not happen very often-rather than every seven years, the reviews occur about every twelve years and they are seldom effective because the people doing the reviews (the legislators) are seldom as prepared as the bureaucrats-remember the Texas Legislature is not professional and has relatively limited staff.

33

Bureaucratic Oversight, continued

3) Budget Process: Every two years, each agency must go before the appropriate standing committee and the appropriate budget subcommittee and request its budget money for the next two years. At this time, these committees are supposed to explain why they need the money they are asking for and defend their spending practices. The committees are supposed to analyze these requests critically and make sure each agency is being efficient and effective. However, this often does not happen because of the relationship between the agency, the committee, and the interest group, called the cozy triangle or iron triangle. (Why does this role make sense for the legislature to perform as opposed to the courts or executive branch?)

First, as the author of the laws, the legislature understands the intent of those laws and, obviously, would be the best institution to evaluate if that intent is being met by the agency.

Second, bureaucratic agencies are technically part of the executive branch so asking that branch to evaluate performance is somewhat akin to asking the fox to watch the hen house!

Third, the legislature is structured most effectively to oversee the agency-for every major agency, there is a matching and experienced legislative committee. There is a Department of Education and a Committee on Education. There is a Department of Public Safety and a House Committee on Public Safety. Finally, with its stable structure and membership, the legislative branch is the only institution that can build up seniority and experience to compete with the senior members of the bureaucracy. Long-time members of the legislature can remember the promises, kept and unkept, made by bureaucrats over the years!

Given these advantages that the legislature has in oversight, why is it so seldom done?

How Does Texas Compare: The Texas LegislaturePercent of the Legislators that Are Democrats, 2003

With the exception of Nebraska unicameral legislature, every state legislature in America is made up of Democrats and Republicans. The proportion of Democrats and Republicans varies considerably across the country as you can see below. While the South was dominated by the Democratic party only twenty years ago, it is interesting to note that of the five most Democratic institutions, only two, Arkansas and Alabama were from the south. Such deep south states as Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are controlled by the Democrats, but the Republicans have a growing and significant presence. Texas is almost in the bottom of this split, with 40.88% of the Texas Legislature being Democratic. Democrats control more seats in 22 states and fewer in 27 states (Nebraska’s unicameral legislature is non-partisan). This makes a difference because we know that politicians are more responsive and policies representative of the public when both parties are strong. Think about how different government might be in Texas today if the Democrats still controlled over ninety percent of the seats as they did not more than twenty years ago. Does it matter?

State Total Number of Legislative Seats % of Democratic Seats

34

Nebraska

District of Columbia

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Hawaii

Arkansas

Alabama

Maryland

West Virginia

Louisiana

Mississippi

Connecticut

California

New York

New Mexico

Kentucky

Georgia

Illinois

Tennessee

Oklahoma

Maine

New Jersey

49

---

200

113

76

135

140

188

134

144

174

187

120

212

112

138

236

177

132

149

186

120

Non-Partisan

-----

85.00

84.07

73.68

71.85

70.00

69.68

68.66

67.36

67.24

61.50

60.83

60.38

59.82

59.42

55.93

55.37

54.54

54.36

52.69

52.50

35

North Carolina

Washington

Nevada

Vermont

Indiana

Pennsylvania

Montana

Colorado

Iowa

Oregon

Missouri

Minnesota

Michigan

Wisconsin

South Carolina

Texas

Delaware

Arizona

Ohio

Virginia

Alaska

Kansas

Florida

170

147

63

180

150

253

150

100

150

90

197

201

148

132

170

181

62

90

132

140

60

165

160

51.76

51.70

49.21

48.89

46.00

45.45

45.33

45.00

44.67

44.44

44.16

43.28

42.57

42.42

42.35

40.88

40.32

37.78

36.36

35.71

35.00

33.33

33.13

36

North Dakota

New Hampshire

South Dakota

Wyoming

Utah

Idaho

141

424

105

90

104

105

31.21

29.48

28.57

26.67

25.00

21.90

2009 Base Salary for State Legislatorsper year (or $20,000 during a session year)?

California

Michigan

New York

Pennsylvania

Illinois

Massachusetts

Ohio

Wisconsin

New Jersey

Hawaii

Maryland

Delaware

Washington

Oklahoma

95,29179,65079,50078,31567,83661,44060,58449,94349,00048,70843,50042,75042,10638,40035,91531,14130,33630,00028,00025,00024,01224,00022,61621,61220,00019,00918,00017,342

IdahoArkansasNorth CarolinaMaineRhode IslandNebraskaKentuckyNorth DakotaSouth CarolinaMississippiNevadaKansasMontanaTexasSouth DakotaWyomingUtahAlabamaNew HampshireNew MexicoVermont

16,11615,36213,95113,52613,08912,00011,20410,80010,40010,0008,2747,9797,4387,2006,0006,0005,8503,0001000

625.36/week

37

Missouri

Minnesota

Florida

Colorado

Connecticut

Iowa

Alaska

Arizona

Indiana

Oregon

West Virginia

Tennessee

Virginia

Georgia

Louisiana

16,800

State Legislators per One Million in Population, 2002It is generally assumed that the more legislators there are per citizens, the better the legislature will be able to represent the interests of those citizens. A legislator that must represent 600,000 people will have a more difficult time representing them than one who must represent 60,000 or 20,000 people. In New Hampshire, a small state with over 400 legislators, every million citizens are represented by 343 legislators, meaning that each legislator represents under 3,000 people. On the other hand, each million Californians are represented by four members, meaning that each represents, on average, 250,000 people!! Texas has less representation than all states except California (ranked 49) with 9 members per 1 million citizens (averages 111,000 citizens per legislator). This means that citizens in Texas are generally going to be under represented. Do you believe one person can adequately represent 111,000 people?

New Hampshire 343 Louisiana 32

38

Vermont

North Dakota

Wyoming

Montana

Maine

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Alaska

Idaho

Delaware

West Virginia

Hawaii

New Mexico

Kansas

Mississippi

Connecticut

Iowa

Arkansas

Utah

Oklahoma

South Carolina

Minnesota

Maryland

296

229

182

166

146

143

139

96

81

79

74

63

62

61

61

55

51

50

47

43

42

41

35

Massachusetts

Nevada

Alabama

Georgia

Nebraska

Oregon

Indiana

Washington

Wisconsin

Colorado

Tennessee

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Arizona

Michigan

Illinois

New Jersey

Ohio

New York

Florida

Texas

California

32

32

31

29

29

26

25

25

25

23

23

21

21

20

18

15

14

14

12

11

10

9

4

39

Missouri

Kentucky

35

34

Total Number of Legislative Staff, 1996It is often said that a legislative institution is only as strong as its support staff. Legislators can only make good decisions and good policies if they have good, unbiased information to combat that provided by the governor, the bureaucracy, the media and the lobbyists. Unlike most measures of effectiveness, the Texas legislature does very well when compared to staffing patterns in other legislatures. Only three states (New York, Pennsylvania and California) had more staff members in 1998 than did the Texas General Assembly. You may notice that it is generally the larger states that provide the most staff, because their members are expected to do more constituent work and these states are usually policy leaders. On the other end, sparsely populated states like Vermont, South Dakota and New Mexico provide very limited staff for their legislators. The large staff is particularly important in Texas where the members must hold other jobs (or just be rich) in order to make ends meet. In states with small staffs, legislators find it difficult to compete with the governor, the interest groups, or the bureaucrats.

OKLAHOMA 415 ALABAMA 414 ALASKA 405 KENTUCKY 383 IOWA 366 KANSAS 363 WEST VIRGINIA 356 INDIANA 326 TENNESSEE 283 COLORADO 260 NEBRASKA 250 MONTANA 229 RHODE ISLAND 228 UTAH 225 MAINE 180 MISSISSIPPI 180 NORTH DAKOTA 172 DELAWARE 164 NEW HAMPSHIRE 159 IDAHO 155 WYOMING 125 NEW MEXICO 94 SOUTH DAKOTA 94 VERMONT 58

NEW YORK 3,899 PENNSYLVANIA 2,702 CALIFORNIA 2,610 TEXAS 2,420 FLORIDA 2,173 NEW JERSEY 1,514 MICHIGAN 1,357 ILLINOIS 1,057 WASHINGTON 902 MINNESOTA 841 VIRGINIA 823 GEORGIA 742 HAWAII 742 MARYLAND 737 WISCONSIN 691 CONNECTICUT 623 ARIZONA 567 OHIO 552 LOUISIANA 524 MISSOURI 524 SOUTH CAROLINA 493 NEVADA 490 OREGON 484 NORTH CAROLINA 464 ARKANSAS 456

Percent of Legislators that are Women, 2003

40

Women are more likely to be elected to office in some states than in others. This is true for election to the legislature. This difference is important, because we know that women legislators support different issues than men, represent their constituents differently than men and make decisions differently than their male counterparts. In Washington state, almost forty percent of all legislators are women. Women make up more than thirty percent in seven states. On the other hand, they make up less than fifteen percent of the chamber in 7 states. Texas is in the middle, with nineteen states having a lower proportion of women legislators and thirty having a higher proportion. Generally, women are less likely to be elected in Southern states, conservative states and more professional legislatures. Why do you think women do not do as well in Texas as some other states? Does this matter? How might we change that?

Washington

Colorado

Maryland

Oregon

New Mexico

California

Connecticut

Vermont

Delaware

Nevada

Kansas

New Hampshire

Hawaii

Maine

Minnesota

Arizona

Illinois

36.7

34.0

33.0

31.1

30.4

30.0

29.4

29.4

29.0

28.6

27.9

27.8

27.6

26.9

26.9

26.7

26.6

Missouri

Georgia

Iowa

Alaska

North Carolina

Texas

Ohio

Rhode Island

West Virginia

Nebraska

Wyoming

Tennessee

Indiana

Arkansas

New Jersey

Virginia

Louisiana

21.8

21.6

21.3

20.0

20.0

19.9

19.7

19.5

18.7

18.4

17.8

17.4

17.3

16.3

15.8

15.7

15.3

41

Wisconsin

Massachusetts

Idaho

Montana

Florida

Michigan

New York

Utah

26.5

26.0

25.7

24.7

23.1

23.0

22.2

22.1

South Dakota

North Dakota

Pennsylvania

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Kentucky

Alabama

South Carolina

15.2

14.9

13.8

13.2

11.4

10.9

10.0

9.4

A Comparison of the *Professionalism of State Legislatures

Legislative Institutions vary considerably from one state to another. Some, like California, New York and Michigan, are like the U.S. Congress, with well paid, experienced members and full-time, well paid staffs. On the other hand, some, like New Hampshire, North Dakota and Wyoming, don’t meet very often, pay their members very little and offer little support staff. Texas is generally in the middle, ranked 21st out of the fifty states in professionalism. Texas only meets 140 days every two years and pays its members only 600 per month, but has a relatively stable membership and very strong staffing. The fact that the Texas legislature is not very professional is important because it means that lobbyists, staff and the governor are more likely to influence what the legislature does than if they were better informed and better paid. Until Texas raises its salaries and makes its legislative sessions annually, neither of which are likely in the near future, it will remain less professional than other large states, like California, Florida, New York and Michigan, and it will remain at the mercy of interest groups and lobbyists.

NEW YORK .659 MICHIGAN .653 CALIFORNIA .625 MASSACHUSETTS .614 PENNSYLVANIA .336 OHIO .329 ALASKA .311 ILLINOIS .302 COLORADO .300 MISSOURI .287 HAWAII .276 WISCONSIN .270

LOUISIANA .185 OREGON .183 SOUTH CAROLINA .178 VIRGINIA .170 MAINE .161 MISSISSIPPI .160 NEVADA .160 ALABAMA .158 KANSAS .152 RHODE ISLAND .148 VERMONT .145 INDIANA .139

42

FLORIDA .255 NEW JERSEY .255 ARIZONA .250 OKLAHOMA .250 CONNECTICUT .233 WASHINGTON .230 IOWA .225 TEXAS .210 MARYLAND .204 NORTH CAROLINA .203 MINNESOTA .199 DELAWARE .192 NEBRASKA .186

TENNESSEE .135 GEORGIA .133 WEST VIRGINIA .125 IDAHO .119 MONTANA .110 ARKANSAS .105 KENTUCKY .101 NEW MEXICO .098 SOUTH DAKOTA .083 UTAH .082 NORTH DAKOTA .075 WYOMING .056 NEW HAMPSHIRE .042